Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states. The bill would take effect only when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes-that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). The bill would replace the current winner take all system of awarding electoral votes with a system guaranteeing the Presidency to the candidate who wins the most popular votes in all 50 states, while preserving the states’ control over the manner in which the president is elected.

If you’re serious about getting a national popular vote, just eliminate the Electoral College. That could never happen but if you’re introducing legislation that will only become law when states with 270 Electoral College votes pass the bill, well, then that too will never be enacted.

Our elections are already balkanized to the point of no return with our primary and Electoral College systems. There’s no reason Iowa and New Hampshire should be the states that set the tune and tone of our presidential elections and as a result, skew national legislative priorities to their interests. If you’re serious about reform, you need to blow up the system and start over. In the words of Mike Ehrmantraut: no more half measures.

You can read the entirety of the letter below the fold. But the greatest gem is the stunningly-partisan-and-not-unexpected reading of history when they cite how fewer than 60k votes in Ohio in 2004 would’ve cost President Bush the election. But there’s no mention of the 2000 election where, you know, Bush lost the popular vote.

Letter from 8 Former ALEC National Chairs

As the former National Chairs of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and as current and former members of state legislatures from across the United States, we are writing to ask you to consider a bipartisan, truly representative and fairer process to elect the President of the United States.

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact does not abolish the Electoral College. Instead, it uses the state’s existing authority to change how the Electoral College is chosen, namely from the current winner take all state statutes, to an interstate compact which ensures that the president will be elected by the popular vote of everyone in all 50 states.

This would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states.

The shortcomings of the current system stem from the winner-take-all rule (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) enacted by state statute in 48 of the 50 states.

Because of the winner-take-all rule, a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in 4 of the nation’s 57 presidential elections. As an example of a near miss, a shift of fewer than 60,000 votes in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush, despite his nationwide lead of 3,500,000 votes.

This is a state rights issue, a true federalist solution to the current problem where 4 out of 5 Americans are ignored by presidential candidates. Every person-in every state-has the right to decide who is elected President.

The U.S. Constitution gives the states exclusive and plenary control over the manner of awarding their electoral votes. Article II, Section 1 states: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”
The winner-take-all rule is not in the Constitution. It was not the Founders’ choice, and was used by only three states in the nation’s first presidential election in 1789.

Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states. The bill would take effect only when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes-that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). The bill would replace the current winner take all system of awarding electoral votes with a system guaranteeing the Presidency to the candidate who wins the most popular votes in all 50 states, while preserving the states’ control over the manner in which the president is elected.

One of the bedrock principles of the Conservative movement is our steadfast support of states’ rights. As Washington D.C. continues to grow beyond the size and scope our Founders could have ever conceived of, the right of states to exercise our authority under the Constitution remains one of the last buffers against an over-reaching federal government. The right of states to control their electors in a manner prescribed by their own state legislature is arguably one of the most important authorities granted by the U.S. Constitution. This authority is therefore one of the greatest responsibilities assigned to state legislators. It is undoubtedly in EVERY state’s interest to use this authority to help enact a national popular vote of every vote cast in all 50 states.

The manner in which states appoint their electors in presidential elections has a direct impact on that state’s influence in presidential politics and policymaking. Thus, state legislators have the fiduciary responsibility to use their constitutional authority to maximize their state’s influence in the best interest of their state’s citizens. The current system of awarding electors to presidential candidates does not serve most state’s interest. The good news is that national popular vote is both an appropriate use of our constitutional authority, but also increases our relevance in the national political scene. It protects the principles of Federalism and preserves and guarantees our Republican form of government.

One need not look further than the 2012 election to make this point. A full 80% of Americans were ignored in the last presidential election. After being nominated, Obama held campaign events in just eight closely divided battleground states, and Romney did so in only 10. These 10 states received 98% of the $940 million spent on campaign advertising. Forty states were mere spectators. This is a clear demonstration of the most important political calculus. The literal and quantified importance of any given state for the incoming chief executive can be derived from this example.

Not only is it in our own states interest, but it is equally important to weigh this decision in a nationwide context. It is in this light that the value of a national popular vote system is most clearly seen. “Battleground” states receive 7% more federal grants than “spectator” states, twice as many presidential disaster declarations, more Superfund enforcement exemptions, and more No Child Left Behind law exemptions. Because of the disproportionate value of the “swing states” federal policy decisions have been distorted in ways that grow the size of the federal government. The largest government entitlement since the Great Society was Medicare Part D, designed to win the large senior voting population in Florida.

As conservatives, and former ALEC National Chairs, there are several other political aspects that we think are important to consider.

We believe we are a ‘center-right’ nation. A national popular vote system would give our center-right coalition a greater voice in electing the President. Rather than having to campaign in battleground states only, every one of our coalition’s members would matter. Nationwide turnout, regardless of the impact on individual states, would matter. Our voices and issues move and affect voters nationally and candidates would have to take them into greater consideration.

Moving away from the current system also helps reduce the incentive and value of voter fraud. Today, small changes executed by a very small number of people in a particular state could have a determinative effect on the national outcome in the Electoral College vote. By moving away from the winner take all system, we diminish the role any one group, city or ‘machine’ could play to swing a state’s Electoral College votes.

Today, conservatives in many states have little voice. Presidential campaigns concentrate their efforts in the 6-12 battleground states, depending on the year. Under a National Popular Vote, conservative turnout in California, New York and even small states like Vermont and Rhode Island would matter. This would provide for a great incentive to organize our ‘natural’ and often times ‘silent’ majority in EVERY state.

Obviously, the left has a similar scenario and perspective about the national electorate. They believe that they have a better organizational base, a broader appeal and would/should be the majority party and movement in America. We are confident that the conservatives across this country are under-represented and under-counted election after election.

The bottom line is that the National Popular Vote Bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states. We believe that is both right and fair. Having a fair fight for the hearts and minds of Americans is a challenge we wholeheartedly accept!

It is for these reasons that a national popular vote is clearly in our states, our nations, and our party’s best interest. As stated before, our state legislatures are endowed by our Founders with an awesome responsibility to award each state’s electors in a manner prescribed by each state’s sovereign elected bodies. It is not only in our interest, but indeed our responsibility, to use that authority to advance the priorities of the people of each and every one of our great states.

Share this:

Related

About Author

edatlanta

33 Comments

gcp

Change the primary system by dividing the country into four parts with roughly equal population. You would have primaries in Feb, March, April, May. This process would be more efficient and would eliminate the Iowa, New Hampshire silliness.

Well now we’re getting into dictating intra-party rules but just have the winner of the primary day be the nominee. That’s where you could compromise and have it work so that GA gets as the same proportion of delegates as EC votes and they’re bound to the state’s vote.

Eight former chairmen of the conservative group American Legislative Exchange Council signed a letter endorsing it.

The bill retains the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It ensures that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter in the state counts and national count.

Maine (since 1969) and Nebraska (since 1992) have awarded one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district, and two electoral votes statewide

77% of Maine voters and 74% of Nebraska voters support a national popular vote.

Why do I get the feeling ALEC’s support for this proposal stems from the GOP’s emerging electoral college disadvantage and not some concern for equality?

As it stands now, the Democrats are guaranteed at least 217 EVs. That could be higher depending on whether you think WI (10 EV) and PA (20 EV) are truly swing states. WI hasn’t gone Repuplican since 1984, PA hasn’t gone red since 1988.

Win IA (9 EVs, red in ’04 but blue in every election since ’88), NV (6 EVs, blue in ’08 and ’12), CO (9 EV, blue in ’08 and ’12), NH (4 EV, red in ’00 but blue in every election since ’92) and that’s 272 EVs without having to win OH, VA, or FL and without having to try and flip Southern states like NC or GA.

That should scare the crap out of ALEC. Because it’s not like Democrats are losing ground with the growing Latino populations in NV or CO or FL.

Some conservatives have spun themselves so tightly that they can’t even see the words they use to support their ideas directly contradict them. A few samples:

“This is a state rights issue,” – So our solution is to take away the power of individual states and mandate the results of a federal election.

“We believe we are a ‘center-right’ nation. A national popular vote system would give our center-right coalition a greater voice in electing the President.” – But you just said it’s a states’ rights issue. Now it’s openly seeking a partisan advantage.

“It protects the principles of Federalism and preserves and guarantees our Republican form of government.” – Again, you’ve suggested that some swing states may not get special privileges, but please tell me how any state in fly-over country is made stronger if there’s no need to campaign to turn out votes in rural areas without major media markets and few actual voters? You haven’t. More platitudes while the actual affect is to concentrate power in large states and urban areas, and diminishing the role of individual states relative to the federal national opinion markets.

“Moving away from the current system also helps reduce the incentive and value of voter fraud.” – Based on what, exactly? There is no uniform federal law or rules on voter registration or voter ID. Conservative states will continue to demand voter ID and verified registration. Liberal states will continue to demand no ID and same day registration. Guess which one will have the incentive to promote voter fraud? And what is the small market conservative state’s recourse if CA and IL start producing tens of thousands of extra voters because now an extra 50K votes can make a national difference. In the past, any vote fraud is contained to impacting one state. Now you have just created an incentive because the effects can be national. This single platitude alone should be enough to demonstrate this idea has exactly the opposite effect intended.

“Today, conservatives in many states have little voice.” – No. Not even close to being true. The problem is that too many conservatives demand 100% of what they want, and nothing they don’t want. Anything else is a failure, and is said to be devoid of principle and often will cause anyone that disagrees to go straight to hell. The problem isn’t that we don’t have a voice. It’s that we’ve allowed that voice to be hijacked by charlatans, false prophets for profit, and others that keep pushing process solutions instead of actually trying to govern and solve problems. When the market rejects your ideas it’s often best to change out the sales team if you have a good product. It’s much riskier to try and game the systems because you’ve fallen in love with your own platitudes rather than ask why your goods are selling.

TL/DR version: All platitude, little substance, and likely exactly opposite effect of what the signers intend if implemented.

I believe this is truly short-sighted on Republicans’ ends for many reasons not least of which being Democrats have it much easier in dense, urban areas. They’d have to max out a few of those with the number of voters and it’s game over for the GOP.

Also: the Republican boogeyman conceptualization of voter fraud is found to be statistically non-existent.

The remaining four-sixths live in the suburbs, which divide almost exactly equally.

In a nationwide election for President, candidates would campaign everywhere—big cities, medium-sized cities, and rural areas—in proportion to the number of votes, just as they now do in only the handful of battleground states.

herein lies the problem. You are stating what you believe to be true (your opinion) as fact. Because you believe it strongly, you are repeating it. What you’re not doing is offering supporting data to back up your actual argument.

You believe that small rural areas will be treated equally. That’s your opinion. There is no fact to back it up.

The reality is that it is much easier to target people where they are. That is, in the densely populated areas. The problem with densely populated areas is that there are a lot of people that don’t know their neighbors, much less people a block or two away. Thus, it’s a lot easier to manufacture voters in these areas. I repeat my above concern of voter fraud, which again the letter states an opinion as fact that there will be less incentive to commit fraud. I posit based on the beginning of this graph that there is in fact more incentive. That’s my opinion, but I recognize it as such. It’s supported as well as the circular opinions in this letter and in your follow ups.

I’m glad you feel strongly about this issue. You even have some numbers. They don’t ultimately lead me any closer to the conclusion that this plan would achieve your desired objective. Quite the contrary, I believe that while well intentioned, this plan would actually make the problems we have much, much worse.

In Ohio—the single state that received over a quarter (73 of 253) of all of the 2012 general-election campaign events (and a similar fraction of advertising expenditures),
the candidates campaigned in various parts of the state essentially in proportion to its population.
● The 4 biggest metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) in Ohio have 53.9% of the state’s population and received 52.1% of the state’s 73 campaign events in 2012—slightly less than their share of the population (but very close to their percentage of the population). They voted 54% Democratic.
● The 7 medium-sized metro areas have 23.6% of the state’s population and received 23.3% of the campaign events—almost exactly in proportion of their population. They voted 52% Democratic.
● The 53 remaining counties (that is, the rural counties lying outside the state’s 11 MSAs) have 22% of the state’s population and received 25% of the campaign events—slightly more than their share of the population (but very close to their percentage of the population). They voted 58% Republican

In a nationwide election, as in statewide elections for governor and U.S. Senators, and elections for President in battleground states, candidates would campaign everywhere in proportion to the number of votes.

February 12, 2016 5:03 PM

kohler

The main media at the moment, TV, costs much more per impression in big cities than in smaller towns and rural area. Candidates get more bang for the buck in smaller towns and rural areas.

February 12, 2016 5:03 PM

kohler

Former Colorado Congressman and presidential candidate Tom Tancredo (R) said, “The issue of voter fraud … won’t entirely go away with the National Popular Vote plan, but it is harder to mobilize massive voter fraud on the national level without getting caught, than it is to do so in a few key states. Voter fraud is already a problem. The National Popular Vote makes it a smaller one.”

A nationwide vote for President would make effective voter fraud more difficult than the current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes.

Executing electoral fraud without getting caught requires a situation in which a very small number of people can have a very large impact.

Under the current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes, fraudsters know that a small amount of fraud in a closely divided “battleground” state can affect enough popular votes to flip all of a state’s electoral votes, and hence, possibly, the national outcome.

If fraudsters had flipped 537 popular votes from Republican to Democrat in Florida in 2000, they would have changed both the statewide-level outcome and the national outcome. Similarly, a shift of only 1,710 popular votes in California in 1916 would have switched all of the state’s electoral votes and thereby defeated President Wilson in the Electoral College– despite his nationwide lead of 579,000 votes. It is far easier for a small criminal group to tamper with 1,710 popular votes in California than to tamper with 579,000 nationwide (or 537 popular votes in Florida, than 537,179 nationwide).

Under the current system, all of the general-election campaign events in 2012 (and virtually all the advertising expenditures) were in the 12 states within 3% of the national outcome. Flipping a few thousand votes in these closely divided “battleground” states can flip all of that state’s electoral votes, and thereby change the national outcome.

The National Popular Vote bill would make executing fraud more difficult than the current system, because affecting the national outcome in an election with 130,000,000 votes would require flipping hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of votes without getting caught.

If anyone is concerned about voter fraud, a nationwide vote for President is far safer than the current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes.

February 12, 2016 5:06 PM

kohler

Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1:
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.”

There is nothing in Article II (or elsewhere in the Constitution) that prevents states from making the decision now that winning the national popular vote is required to win the presidency.

“The bottom line is that the electors from those states who cast their ballot for the nationwide vote winner are completely accountable (to the extent that independent agents are ever accountable to anyone) to the people of those states. The National Popular Vote states aren’t delegating their Electoral College votes to voters outside the state; they have made a policy choice about the substantive intelligible criteria (i.e., national popularity) that they want to use to make their selection of electors. There is nothing in Article II (or elsewhere in the Constitution) that prevents them from making the decision that, in the Twenty-First Century, national voter popularity is a (or perhaps the) crucial factor in worthiness for the office of the President.”
– Vikram David Amar – professor and the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs at the UC Davis School of Law. Before becoming a professor, he clerked for Judge William A. Norris of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and for Justice Harry Blackmun at the Supreme Court of the United States.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed recently. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range – in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

In state polls of voters each with a second question that specifically emphasized that their state’s electoral votes would be awarded to the winner of the national popular vote in all 50 states, not necessarily their state’s winner, there was only a 4-8% decrease of support.

“Obviously, the left has a similar scenario and perspective about the national electorate. They believe that they have a better organizational base, a broader appeal and would/should be the majority party and movement in America.”

The political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows is that when and where every voter is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere. With National Popular Vote, every voter would be equal. Candidates would reallocate their time, the money they raise, and their ad buys to no longer ignore 80% of the states and voters.

One-sixth of the U.S. population lives in the top 100 cities, and they voted 63% Democratic in 2004.
One-sixth lives outside the nation’s Metropolitan Statistical Areas, and rural America voted 60% Republican.

The main media at the moment, TV, costs much more per impression in big cities than in smaller towns and rural area. Candidates get more bang for the buck in smaller towns and rural areas.

With the current system, a small number of people in a closely divided “battleground” state can potentially affect enough popular votes to swing all of that state’s electoral votes.
537 votes, all in one state determined the 2000 election, when there was a lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide.

The founders did not intend that women, black people, and native Americans vote.
Most of the founders intended that only white men with money could vote.

Prior to arriving at the eventual wording of section 1 of Article II, the Constitutional Convention specifically voted against a number of different methods for selecting the President, including
● having state legislatures choose the President,
● having governors choose the President, and
● a national popular vote.
After these (and other) methods were debated and rejected, the Constitutional Convention decided to leave the entire matter to the states.

The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes used by 2 states, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers. It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by states of winner-take-all or district winner laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes used by 2 states, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers. It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by states of winner-take-all or district winner laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state’s electoral votes.

States have the responsibility and power to make their voters relevant in every presidential election. The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to decide how they award their electoral votes for president.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed recently. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81%range – in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 34 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), The District of Columbia, Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), New Mexico (5), North Carolina (15), Oklahoma (7), and Oregon (7), and both houses in California, Colorado (9). The bill has passed 34 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 261 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

With National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes. There would no longer be a handful of ‘battleground’ states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80%+ of the states that have just been ‘spectators’ and ignored after the conventions. More than 99% of general election campaigns would not be spent on a handful of states. 2/3rds would no longer be spent on 4 states.

A nationwide presidential campaign of polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, with every voter equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. In the 4 states that accounted for over two-thirds of all general-election activity in the 2012 presidential election, rural areas, suburbs, exurbs, and cities all received attention—roughly in proportion to their population.

The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states, including polling, organizing, and ad spending) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every voter is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.

With National Popular Vote, when every voter is equal, everywhere, it makes sense for presidential candidates to try and elevate their votes where they are and aren’t so well liked. But, under the state-by-state winner-take-all laws, it makes no sense for a Democrat to try and do that in Vermont or Wyoming, or for a Republican to try it in Wyoming or Vermont.

Because of the state-by-state winner-take-all electoral votes laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) in 48 states, a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in 4 of the nation’s 57 (1 in 14 = 7%) presidential elections. The precariousness of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes is highlighted by the fact that a shift of a few thousand voters in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 15 presidential elections since World War II. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 7 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012). 537 popular votes won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore’s lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Presidential elections would not continue to be about a narrowly focused barrage of attention by the media, candidates, pollsters, strategists, organizers, and ads in the handful of unrepresentative swing states that dominate and determine the general election, while most of the country, like Georgia, is politically irrelevant.

This is absolutely ridiculous. We get that you’re excited. We get that you believe strongly in this topic. What I’m about to say has nothing to do with the fact that I disagree with you. It has everything to do with the fact that “you’re doing it wrong.”

You have now taken a place where you could engage in conversation and have instead chosen to cut and paste other people’s work into multiple, too-long comments that no one is going to read, will persuade no one not already convinced since a large part of what you’ve copied is verbatim in the original post, and moves the perception of you to an outsider from one of an impassioned supporter to an unhinged loon.

If you want to converse with someone and change their opinion, this is not how it’s done. Ever.

More importantly, if you wish to hang around here, this is not how we conduct conversations. Don’t cut and paste arguments from others. Don’t spam the thread with multiple comments so as to only have a conversation with yourself. And take a deep breath once in a while rather than thinking that the best way to convince someone is to produce a novel saying the same thing over and over and over and over again.

The folks reading this have been around for up to a decade. They’re willing to consider different points of view. They’re also willing to quickly dismiss people that can’t frame an argument or articulate it succinctly.

You’re welcome to remain and be part of this and any other conversation. You’re not welcome to spam our threads. Please learn the difference.

“The shortcomings of the current system stem from the winner-take-all rule (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) ”

“Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states.”

Wait, what??

“This authority is therefore one of the greatest responsibilities assigned to state legislators. It is undoubtedly in EVERY state’s interest to use this authority to help enact a national popular vote of every vote cast in all 50 states.”

Newspeak!

“Every person-in every state-has the right to decide who is elected President.”
So if I understand this correctly, a majority of Floridians could vote for candidate A, but nationally candidate B has the most votes, so all of Florida’s electoral votes go to candidate B anyway?

“These 10 states received 98% of the $940 million spent on campaign advertising.”
Jealousy!

If ALEC isn’t supporting this then why even mention their affiliation? Is that a bigger item on the resumé than being a legislator?

Just urge every state to assign their delegates proportionally. Done. Let’s have a beer.

Although the whole-number proportional approach might initially seem to offer the possibility of making every voter in every state relevant in presidential elections, it would not do this in practice.
It would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote;
It would not improve upon the current situation in which four out of five states and four out of five voters in the United States are ignored by presidential campaigns, but instead, would create a very small set of states in which only one electoral vote is in play (while making most states politically irrelevant), and
It would not make every vote equal.
It would not guarantee the Presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country.

A national popular vote is the way to make every person’s vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.

Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. We don’t allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

This is your final warning. We are a blog about Georgia politics. The profile you were spamming our Facebook page with indicates that you are from Arkansas. You have made no attempt to have an actual conversation nor be part of our community. All you have done is stop an actual productive conversation that was occurring by trying to filibuster it. And in the process, have ensured that no undecided person here will consider your point of view.

I sense these words will be completely lost on you, but they are here for our readers benefit so they can see that you were given a fair chance to participate, but chose not to.

You know how, during football season, you get sick of seeing Peyton Manning’s grotesquely large forehead on your television? One commercial break he’s selling you crappy pizza. The next he’s humming an insurance jingle. The next he’s selling you a Buick. The one after that, he’s selling you crappy pizza again.

That is life for people in “battleground states.” One commercial break it’s Barack Obama. The next its Mitt Romney. Then throw in some ads from PACs. Rinse and repeat. Living in a state that campaigns pay attention to is A-W-F-U-L. Be happy to live in a place that is safely red or blue.

Direct election would also equalize the value of each citizen’s vote. California with 12.2% of the nation’s population has only 10.2% (55) of the electoral votes. Wyoming with 0.2% of the nation’s population has nearly 0.6% (3) of the 538 electoral votes. A Wyoming vote thus has more than three times the Electoral College weight of a California vote.

My calculations are that votes in 30 states plus DC (every state with 9 or less electoral votes except Colorado, plus WI and MN with 10 votes) are worth less when there is direct election, so direct election proposals aren’t likely to go anywhere. (I used 2015 population. CO’s relatively fast growing population put it above average population per electoral vote.)

This element of the Electoral College distinctly benefits the GOP since at least 18 of the 30 (collective population 48M) are red states, and at least 11 are blue (collective population 25M) . (I tallied IA and NV as purple.)